|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Jul 26, 2017 20:05:13 GMT -5
VOTING ENDS ON: August 8th, 2017
|
|
MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Aug 1, 2017 18:56:46 GMT -5
VOTING ENDS AUGUST 8th
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Aug 1, 2017 19:31:12 GMT -5
Denounced on the basis that debate on this topic did not yield a response from the bill's author.
Mainly, my reservations stem from the cumbersome process of having establish treaties with all nations we have "ties" with, the utter complexity of the merger and consolidation process, and- worst of all- the fact that this bill will allow the Chancellor to raise a "garrison" (see: military) to defend a region that has an active founder account and non-executive WA delegate.
|
|
Perland
Former Members
New flag be lit son
Posts: 63
|
Post by Perland on Aug 2, 2017 8:46:51 GMT -5
Abstain
|
|
|
Post by Solla Ultima on Aug 2, 2017 14:54:11 GMT -5
Denounced
|
|
|
Post by Anglia Imperium, MP on Aug 3, 2017 9:47:43 GMT -5
DENOUNCED. By me as well. The Chancellor has enough power to control Foreign Affairs (through Embassies Authority) already. And the "Garrison" is all but desirable. Plus I don't want the Chancellor above my head every day.
|
|
|
Post by Baxten on Aug 3, 2017 13:13:03 GMT -5
Denounced. I think the current system we have is fine as it is, and as such needs no change
|
|
|
Post by Peng on Aug 3, 2017 16:08:49 GMT -5
Denounced
|
|
|
Post by Andromitus on Aug 3, 2017 23:38:15 GMT -5
Denounced;
I have a variety of problems with this bill, starting with Section 1 Subsection 4 (S1 ss.4.); this entire subsection is completely useless and I personally believe that under no circumstances should the Chancellor be allowed to "Raise a Garrison" for the basic fact that one is not needed. We have an active founder account shared between multiple members and we push for pacifism in almost every regard, the CoFN is a region specifically designed to be impervious to invasion and the systems we have in place ensure this.
Section 2 Subsection 1 is also an area of concern as I personally believe that, while an official system should be in place, it can easily be bypassed with a majority of the Merging regions population simply joining the CoFN en mass. Now, should an official merger occur (as opposed to simply a mass influx of new members) the citizens of the CoFN should have a referendum so as to ensure that the people of our Confederacy approve and wish of a Total Acquisition instead of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chancellor having the only say. Alongside this, there is no need to bar the leader of the merging region from stationing nations in the region they left behind as it makes no sense. That region is still theirs and as many of her original members should have the basic right to join it again; and, our Chancellor should have no say in its population and residence, nor should he/she nave any power or necessity toward it.
Finally, S2.ss.2. is by far the aspect of this bill that I truly despise; There is no reason for a "Partial Consolidation" to occur and the CoFN should not approve of externally governing regions.
|
|
MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Aug 8, 2017 20:51:37 GMT -5
FAILED. with 5 Denounced, 1 abstain and a technical veto from the Chancellor.
|
|